Apparently, the maelstrom of embarrassment and public ridicule created by Kari Marie Norgaard, professor of sociology and environmental studies at the University of Oregon was too much for the University to bear. So, in the best Soviet style, they rewrote history, as if nobody would notice, without so much as an apology or update. I find it amazing in this day an age that University types still don’t understand the Internet and that disappearing things like this only makes it worse for you.

UPDATE: It seems Norgaard herself has been “disappeared” from the University of Oregon web server. In the ORIGINAL press statement that I got from Google Cache, there’s a link to Norgaard’s faculty page, a portion of which I used in my third paragraph above.

Here’s the screencap, I put yellow highlight either side of the link to her page:

What a bunch of rank amateurs. Maybe they’ll soon go from being called The Mighty Ducks to “The Mighty Schmucks”.

===============================================================

UPDATE#2 – It gets worse. As pointed out in comments, apparently her official uoregon.edu email address has been replaced on the Sociology Faculty page. On the Google Cache for that page, as it appeared on Mar 28, 2012 19:55:22 GMT, the “send email” link for Norgaard goes to a uoregon.edu email address. On the current page, it goes to a yahoo.com email address. If they were trying to shield her from hateful email, why shift it to a private email account?

Something is going on behind the scenes that we aren’t privy to yet.

UPDATE#3 4/3/12 2PM PST

UO responds:

I asked Jim Barlow, director of science and research communications, University of Oregon when and why the sentence was changed. Here’s his response:

“I intended the original first sentence of the news release to function as a play-on-words on our researcher’s message about recognizing and addressing cultural inertia. Unfortunately, the word “treated” became the focus of the story, leading to inaccurate portrayals. In an effort to shift the focus back to the actual topic of the conference presentation, I chose at midday Monday to remove the word from the version of the news release that appears on our website.”

The activist branch of climate “science” has morphed into a social “science” where hypothesis and theory become vehicles for loopy untestable flights of imagination. Nothing can be tested and nothing disproved. How is it so attractive to so many seemingly intelligent people? Is it because academics live in echo chambers where every utterance is its own justification?

I’m glad you’re spreading this far and wide. Just like the No Pressure video (and the mentality behind it) these people will go just as far as they can, up to and including carrying out such pernicious plans, if they think they can get away with it. This is just testing the water. The only real antidote, before the bullets start flying, is to drag it all out into the public arena for everyone to see and judge. One of the (many) reasons I have such a high regard for Lord Monckton is his unrelenting determination to ensure that each and every green totalitarian lunacy sees the light of day. At least then we can’t say we weren’t warned.

And if you click on Kari Norgaard’s name on the faculty list at http://sociology.uoregon.edu/faculty/index.php to view her curricula vitae, you get an Internal Server Error message. Out of the two dozen faculty members listed there, that only happens in her case. A coincidence? More sanitizing in process?

That’s not all they changed: in the google cache version there’s a link to Norgaard’s faculty bio page – that’s missing in the new version.
Plus, attempting to access the link via the cached page results in a 500 “Internal Server Error”.REPLY: Yes, shortly after publishing I did link checks in the story, and I’ve done an update. – Anthony

Ha,ha,ha… its a sickness. Wow, psychology and sociology major careers could be made just on the topic of mass mania, the transmission of memes, and the inherent weakness of the human spirit when faced with peer pressure. If I was one of those majors I would laying out my research papers for the next decade..

I am personally offended by the attitude that questioning the official party line/lie is a mental defect. I fear for the future if these fanatic true believers get more power than they already have. It feels a if we are in a race to prove AGW is false before they enact their polices. I am in the process of searching for a college to send one of my children to. Needless to say, that one is off the list. I would appreciate suggestions for which top 100 universities is safe to send a child to.

A click on Kari Marie Norgaard’s link brings this response:
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
I sincerely hope the University of Oregon did not misconfigure Prof. Norgaard permanently.

Her bio page contains contact info. Maybe they’re simply protecting her privacy by blocking it. Based on photos of her that have been published, I expect that she is receiving some vicious emails.REPLY: That may well be, but she’s a public employee, and that comes with public responsibility for your actions. If they were concerned they could have put up a note explaining why. – Anthony

Born in Eugene a liberal arts college town and grew up across the river in Springfield a logging community. Students at the UofO protested against logging pushing bills that made loggers remove the fallen trees from the streams. As Boy Scouts across the river we planted trees before the laws required it with out a greeny in sight. Years later we put trees into the stream to protect the fish habitat. The story is the same different actors. How long will it be until they come to the conclusion of opposed one more time. I would question if they would ever get it right but that is not the real goal. Speaking of goals stick to football.

Nice work. Was reading this earlier when published and thinking about what a mess our colleges are. Then to top it off there is at the heart of our educational institutions covert activity to cover the embarrassing acts of those who attempt remold the minds of the blind. An obvious admission that there are serious problems with who is hired and worse, who is doing the hiring.
It is a travesty folks are paying for such crap.

wfrumkin in the NW OSU is not a bad choice for science. Their Oceanography and Nuclear programs are not to badly influanced. Earth science is less twisted and the only renewable they have realy worked on is wave energy. The wave will never realy prove out but it is not wind or solar at least.

Of COURSE it is in the best Soviet style. It’s the same people. It is the global socialist movement. It’s a wonder The Internationale didn’t start playing when you landed on the page. Climate change is absolutely vital to implementing the global socialist agenda.

Research interests, race and environment? Forgive me but just WTF has race got to do environment? And tribal environmental health? I really think the last thing our civilisation needs right now is a rerun of Germany circa 1930s pseudo science research into racial differences. Of all the problems the planet faces do we really need some deranged Lysenkoist whipping up racial tensions? What we need is real scientists, what we seem to be getting is fake scientists fabricating a cover of made up pseudo science in order to make their sick political cult more acceptable.

wfrumkin –
By all means, send your offspring to Hillsdale College. They will learn to think independently, to rationally construct and defend a logical argument, and they will be able to inform anyone on the founding principles of America and the many manifestations of American exceptionalism.
This poor Norgaard creature is sad, pathetic, and not a scholar of anything worth transmitting to another generation. No falsifiable hypothesis, just Victim-ology 101

Perhaps unlike in 1984, this could be revisionism for the better. This lady rightfully could become an “unperson.” Right now, there seems to be a purge at the U of O. Maybe. Maybe not.
1984, Part 1, Chapter 4. http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/3.htmlThe reporting of Big Brother’s Order for the Day in The Times of December 3rd 1983 is extremely unsatisfactory and makes references to non-existent persons. Rewrite it in full and submit your draft to higher authority before filing.
Winston read through the offending article. Big Brother’s Order for the Day, it seemed, had been chiefly devoted to praising the work of an organization known as FFCC … A certain Comrade Withers, a prominent member of the Inner Party, had been singled out for special mention and awarded a decoration, the Order of Conspicuous Merit, Second Class.
Three months later FFCC had suddenly been dissolved with no reasons given. One could assume that Withers and his associates were now in disgrace, but there had been no report of the matter in the Press or on the telescreen. That was to be expected, since it was unusual for political offenders to be put on trial or even publicly denounced. The great purges involving thousands of people, with public trials of traitors and thought-criminals who made abject confession of their crimes and were afterwards executed. ☺ ☺

Perfesser;
It has been noted, on the world’s best and most popular science blog, that your dept. has “disappeared” K. Norgaard after her egregious suggestion that those who doubt the “climate change” dogma be “treated” (along with the original press release). All the original material is actually still available, of course.
What a mendacious, incompetent bunch of loons you are.

She most likely was threatened by the extreem, radical right wing guard of the skeptic deniers. The University removed her for her own safety.REPLY: Quite a speculation, got anything to back it up other than bloviation? – Anthony

According to my Firefox history, I visited that page three days ago. I recall going there from the press release.
It may be the more inflammatory claim from The Register about treatment ignited a round of hate mail to the U of OR and they may be responding by hiding in the ditches. See my http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/30/open-thread-weekend-9/#comment-940590 . While I didn’t quote a part of the press release about treatment, I suggested they may have changed the press release since then. It appears it’s also been changed since I saw it.
We’ll have to keep an eye on things there – I wonder if she’s gone for good. Can someone check out her Univ. office and report back if it’s been hastily emptied?
The Register’s article has this quote from the press release they saw:

Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized and treated …
“This kind of cultural resistance to very significant social threat is something that we would expect in any society facing a massive threat,” [Norgaard] said.
The discussion, she said, is comparable to what happened with challenges to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.

I think the “treated” part may have been gone before I saw the press release as I was considering writing the PR office and asking what sort of treatment they had in mind. I didn’t see a statement that was worth copying, so either I missed it or it had been revised.

The root of the problem is revealed by the “Focus Areas” on the U 0f O – Sociology faculty list at http://sociology.uoregon.edu/faculty/index.php:– power structure research; economic and political elites; right-wing movements; politics of the middle classes; social networks;
– corporate political action and US trade policy; nonviolence and social movements; network analysis of collective action
– social inequality; urban & community change; economic sociology.
– gender; violence against women; the social construction of race, class, gender, and sexuality; language and discourse
– gender; intersections of gender, race, class, and sexuality; poverty and welfare reform; feminist organizations and social movements; qualitative methods
– tribal environmental health, race and environment, gender and environment,climate change denial, emotions and social movements
That last one is Kari Norgaard’s “focus.” In her radical liberal environment, the notion that skeptics of CAGW need to be “treated” seems perfectly reasonable.

“She most likely was threatened by the extreem, radical right wing guard of the skeptic deniers. The University removed her for her own safety.”
REPLY: Quite a speculation, got anything to back it up other than bloviation? – Anthony
Sorry.That was a poor attempt to be humorous.REPLY: Always apply the /sarc tag. One man’s humor is another’s insult unless that caveat is made clear – Anthony

Also, the faculty directory page used to have a uoregon.edu Email address for her (visible above), but now it’s some yahoo.com address. There’s no phone # listed in old or new directory page, I vaguely remember noting there wasn’t a phone listed when I saw it three days ago.
I’d say that at this point there isn’t much reason to contact anyone there except maybe for the Media Relations people, and it sounds like they changed their Email address too.

Do not be alarmed. Mental health and information authorities have been dispatched.
*stares at a TV showing an empty desk while speakers being to play relaxing elevator music*
Tall and tan and young and lovely, the girl from Ipanema goes walking
And when she passes, each one she passes goes – ah
When she walks, she’s like a samba that swings so cool and sways so gently
That when she passes, each one she passes goes – aah
Ooh But he watches so sadly, How can he tell her he loves her,
Yes he would give his heart gladly,
but instead when she walks to the sea,
she looks straight ahead not at him,
Tall, and tan, and young, and lovely, the girl from Ipanema goes walking
And when she passes, he smiles – but she doesn’t see
*men in white coats arrive on screen, along with a janitorial crew to make sure no evidence remains. I return to eating my macaroni and cheese and think nothing more of it.*

Can someone please define “environmental sociology” for me? Gender and environment? RACE??? This is beyond so many things that the list would take pages of space. Science is at the top of that list. She calls this kind of thing “areas of scholarship”. Gawd, the Venn Diagrams one could create out of these ‘areas’. What totally empty, vacuous tripe. No wonder they disappeared her. Oh, because it’s “Beyond embarrassing”, I’m guessing. Her autobiographical blurb is quite shabbily egomaniacal…rather Gleickoid in tone. Hmm.
Who the heck is she impressing?????

*stares at a TV showing an empty desk and some upended items. Music begins to play*Tall and tan and young and lovely, the girl from Ipanema goes walking
And when she passes, each one she passes goes – ah
When she walks, she’s like a samba that swings so cool and sways so gently
That when she passes, each one she passes goes – aah
Ooh But he watches so sadly, How can he tell her he loves her,
Yes he would give his heart gladly,
but instead when she walks to the sea,
she looks straight ahead not at him,
Tall, and tan, and young, and lovely, the girl from Ipanema goes walking
And when she passes, he smiles – but she doesn’t see
(saxaphone solo)
Men in white coats appear on screen, followed by janitorial crews to mop up any evidence.
*Returns to eating my macaroni and cheese and think nothing more of it*

Would be interesting to do a psychological study on secularists who have rejected conventional religious doctrine, to replace it with flavours of environmental belief. One might draw parallels with Christian and Jewish apocalyptics, puritanism and world views focused on redemption through abstinence. Contrast and compare with the romanticist movement of the 19th century that rejected rational thought in preference to a “return to nature”. A research emphasis should be placed on academics supportive of this type of world view and how they rationalise their belief systems via appeals to bogus authorities.

But they forgot to call the sociology dept: http://sociology.uoregon.edu/cv/norgaard.pdf If they scrub that one too, I’ll post a copy (for the sake of history – a sociologist might find a treasure trove of material in here some day).

10:11 a.m. | Updated For much more on the behavioral factors that shape the human struggle over climate policy, I encourage you to explore “Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life,” a new book by Kari Marie Norgaard, a sociologist who has just moved from Whitman College to the University of Oregon.
Robert Brulle of Drexel University brought the book to my attention several months ago, and I invited him to do a Dot Earth “Book Report,” to kick off a discussion of Norgaard’s insights, which emerge from years of research she conducted on climate attitudes in a rural community in western Norway. (I’d first heard of of Norgaard’s research while reporting my 2007 article on behavior and climate risk.)
(I also encourage you to read the review in the journal Nature Climate Change by Mike Hulme, a professor of climate at the University of East Anglia and the author of “Why We Disagree about Climate Change.”)
Here’s Brulle’s reaction to Norgaard’s book:
As a sociologist and longtime student of human responses to environmental problems, I’ve seen reams of analysis come and go on why we get some things right and some very wrong. A new book by Kari Norgaard has done the best job yet of cutting to the core on our seeming inability to grasp and meaningfully respond to human-driven climate change.
As the science of climate change has become stronger and more dire, media coverage, public opinion, and government actions regarding this issue has declined. At the same time, climate denial positions have become increasingly accepted, despite a lack of scientific evidence. Even among the public that accepts the science of global climate change, the dire circumstances we now face in this regard are consistently downplayed, and the logical implications that follow from the scientific analysis of the necessity to enact swift and aggressive measures to combat climate change are not followed through either intellectually or politically.

RE
Andrejs Vanags says:
April 2, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Ha,ha,ha… its a sickness. Wow, psychology and sociology major careers could be made just on the topic of mass mania, the transmission of memes, and the inherent weakness of the human spirit when faced with peer pressure. If I was one of those majors I would laying out my research papers for the next decade..
—————————————–
If I was one of those majors I would be asking for a refund and taking my student debt to another university. Gotta hit ’em where it hurts: show the Univ of Oregan the what free market capitalism can do for them…

Left wing, “progressive” NGOs probably. I find her articles in the BBC going all the way back to 2007.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081882.stm
She was featured in adbusters, the people who brought you the Occupy movementhttp://www.adbusters.org/magazine/80/planetary_endgame.html
She’s a communist it would appear. Her game seems to be a mission to “gaslight” the public. Gaslighting is a process where you are made to doubt your own sanity. Her thrust is to get across the notion that if you don’t agree with them, that it is YOU who are in denial. That YOU have some psychological abnormality.
Everything about the methods these people use speaks to abuse. They use the same methods that an abuser uses on their victims. First is devaluation: “I am an important person (and you aren’t) and I am busy with important things (of which talking to you is not one)” or “I have a PhD, do you?” or “Have you produced a peer reviewed paper?”. If that doesn’t make you go away, they try insults. When that fails, they might attempt direct sabotage of your reputation or career. And then finally, when all else fails, you are crazy.
Try this search. It spans several years.
For most of her career she has been preaching to the choir trying to keep them in the fold by telling them that anyone who doesn’t believe them is crazy. It is much like a cult. Apparently they are getting desperate and now they are going right out there to the general public telling them they are crazy but I am not sure of the context in which this information came to light. She might have still been in the process of indoctrinating their cult members that anyone who doesn’t share their world view is crazy. This gives validation to the “believers” and acts as a barrier to their changing their minds.

When I started university in the 1960’s social sciences were mostly a joke already. Anyone could pass these courses, and sometimes they would acknowledge the logic of a counter argument. That seemed fair to me at the time. By the late 70s and 80s, no more acknowledgment of anything good about opposing opinion. Now they want to ‘treat’ anyone who dares disagree with their radical leftist propaganda.
I could even live with that if I could laugh it off as loony leftists in the psueudo-science (social) of socalism/communism.
But as we heard in the 50s and 60s, the Red Menace grows like a cancer. It was true then and it is true now. We lost the social sciences, then some of the softer sciences such as environmental science, and now it is space science (NASA), climate science, earth sciences (AGU), meteorology (AMS) and even physics (APS) and the Royal Society. I hope mathematics and engineering are still real, but I do worry.

“Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:
April 2, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Can someone please define “environmental sociology” for me? Gender and environment? RACE??? ”
Look of “critical race theory” along with “critical (insert BS theory) and thats what it is.
To make it simple shes a racist who indoctrinates that racism into an “environmental studies” format and how the “evil deniers” are racist against (insert BS) by “denying” and they “deny” because they are racist.

Norgaard, Kari Marie, Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to Climate Change (May 1, 2009). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series,
I am unsurprised. We don’t need to stand on the shoulders of giants to see further in this domain full of intellectual pygmies and Zurichal gnomes.
Treading on their toes is so much more satisfying anyway.

Ah, on that Wired piece:
“Kari Norgaard: On the one hand, there have been extremely well-organized, well-funded climate-skeptic campaigns. Those are backed by Exxon Mobil in particular, and the same PR firms who helped the tobacco industry (.pdf) deny the link between cancer and smoking are involved with magnifying doubt around climate change.”
She’s another Gleick, inventing smears.

Thanks Skiphil for this link: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/climate-psychology/ . Very revealing. She thinks Tuvalu is sinking and that flooding in Bangladesh is due to climate change. I guess she spent a little too much time in environmental justice class and not enough in physical geography. Certainly not much time looking at the sea level charts.
If the basic facts are wrong, I’m pretty tough to convince on the feel good fluffyisms.

U of O are not the Mighty Ducks, just the Ducks. The Mighty Ducks are the former name for a Hockey team in Anaheim.
REPLY: Ah, so it is. But up here in Norcal I’ve heard them called “The Mighty Ducks” so that’s where my reference originated. – Anthony

Will Nitschke says:
April 2, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Would be interesting to do a psychological study on secularists who have rejected conventional religious doctrine……………
————————————————–
It would be both interesting and frightening , I generally refer to them as neo-puritans because the behaviour is entirely consistent with the “everything is sinful” early extremist puritans who`s self-loathing was only exceeded by their loathing of others . The similarities were striking enough that , several years ago , before I was aware of sites like WUWT and Jo Nova etc. I put ” Global warming religion ” into a search engine and found this by Prof. John Brignellhttp://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
I know it`s not exactly the study You were looking for but it is a superbly worded essay that hits on all the points of comparision .

I generally refer to them as neo-puritans because the behaviour is entirely consistent with the “everything is sinful” early extremist puritans who`s self-loathing was only exceeded by their loathing of others .

It is basically “fundamentalism” which can manifest in anything; religion, politics, engineering, science. Basically it is enforced groupthink and if you express a different opinion, you are first chastised, and then ostracized, and then, sometimes if you are a big enough threat to their doctrine, they attempt to destroy you.
But in this case the idea is twofold: 1: Convince “believers” that the non-believers are crazy and 2: Possibly get the non-believers to question their own sanity if there are enough in the #1 category around them. Because you are “crazy” if you don’t believe, it them becomes quite acceptable for others to dismiss what you have to say. It is the ultimate devaluation of anything you might want to discuss. It isn’t to be given any weight because you are “crazy” and need “treatment”.
They must be getting to a desperate phase if this is gaining wider notice. They must really be afraid that they are losing their following and have to resort to measures such as this. The message here being “don’t listen to those crazy people and don’t turn into one of them”.
Imagine some left wing academic “believer” who reads her drivel. Now imagine being a student of that academic and questioning CAGW. This pretty much explains it:http://www.nas.org/images/documents/A_Crisis_of_Competence.pdf

“When individual faculty members and sometimes even whole departments decide that their aim
is to advance social justice as they understand it rather than to teach the subject that they were
hired to teach with all the analytical skill that they can muster, the quality of teaching and research is
compromised. This is an inevitable result because, as we shall show, these two aims are incompatible
with each other, so that the one must undermine the other.”

Warren J says:
April 2, 2012 at 11:41 pm
U of O are not the Mighty Ducks, just the Ducks. The Mighty Ducks are the former name for a Hockey team in Anaheim.
REPLY: Ah, so it is. But up here in Norcal I’ve heard them called “The Mighty Ducks” so that’s where my reference originated. – Anthony

The Mighty Ducks of Anaheim will be distressed to learn that they are suddenly “former”. Did this happen yesterday? My high-flying Canucks are due to play them this week!!

While I entirely disagree with the medicalisation of climate sin (obviously, read CS Lewis “That Hideous Strength”), I also feel that hiding her webpage may not be a conspiracy.
There are a lot of wierdos out there on both sides and neither.
It makes sense to take her out of the public eye for reasons that we all would agree with. To keep her safe. A comment on the web to explain the reason would be polite but that’s a mere faux pas, not a devious media manipulation.
There may well be a conspiracy but a muck up is far more likely.

Well, us nasty “deniers” apparently need our mental health examining.
As for the Thermageddonists and useful idiots like this “professor”, I wouldn’t bother too much about their mental health. But it would be more interesting altogether to examine their financial ‘health’.
Follow the money.

I had a look at the “Psychology of Climate Change Denial”http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/climate-psychology/
This is the bit that caught my attention:
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future,” said Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, when the report was released. “This is the defining moment.”
*
2012. Wow! Game’s over, folks. Can we go home now? 🙂

She studies the social organization of sceptics? She gets paid to read WUWT? Let me get this author posts are expected to be for free at WUWT, but if you want to read it you can get paid? This truly is a game changing blog!

“I’m not saying the warming doesn’t cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I’m saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.”
“[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.”
Freeman Dyson
Talking about Rewriting history
Freeman Dyson on Living Through Four Revolutionshttp://youtu.be/zq4p2qbE684

http://sociology.uoregon.edu/faculty/living%20in%20denial/Lertzman%20and%20Norgaard%20Interview.pdf
A nice find on Norgaard’s interview about her book and research, and how to address and solve (i.e treat) the issue of massive denial on climate change. In short, bunch of bile stuff. Her last quote?
“It will not be easy to make those kinds of social changes, but it is going to be less painful
than suffering the economic consequences of not making those changes.”
Lord Monckton needs to have a lively talk with her about “economic consequences.” Maybe he can send he an invite? Heh.

They struck that word from their website but it is obviously what her indoctrination of her “students” is about. I put scare quotes around students because at this point they aren’t students. They aren’t learning, they are being indoctrinated in a political world view. The University of Oregon has become a political academy.

Byron says:
April 2, 2012 at 11:59 pm
It would be both interesting and frightening , I generally refer to them as neo-puritans because the behaviour is entirely consistent with the “everything is sinful” early extremist puritans who`s self-loathing was only exceeded by their loathing of others . The similarities were striking enough that , several years ago , before I was aware of sites like WUWT and Jo Nova etc. I put ” Global warming religion ” into a search engine and found this by Prof. John Brignellhttp://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
I know it`s not exactly the study You were looking for but it is a superbly worded essay that hits on all the points of comparision .
*
That really does sum it up, Byron. thank you for posting that link. I’d like to see copies of that everywhere, in schools, on walls, in letter drops. Prof. John Brignell has got this unpleasant movement totally pegged.

Wow! They’re airbrushing their own now? Probably be interesting to check back in about a month & see if Ms Kari re-appears…
Many of you have probably read Thomas Sowell’s A Quest For Cosmic Justice, written in 1999… He gave a short speech on it that explains the motivations of folks like these. http://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html
“Cosmic visions of society are not just visions about society. They are visions about those people who hold these visions and the role of such people in society, whether these people are deemed to be leaders of a master race, the vanguard of the proletariat, saviors of the planet, or to have some other similarly self-flattering role as an anointed visionary group ‘making a difference’ in the unfolding of history.”

I’ll be darned, Monckton already responded.http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2012/04/advance-warning-nature-magazine-have.html
=====================================================
Lord Monckton was one of those who piled on the pressure
He wrote to Ms Norgaard as follows
“My attention has been drawn to what is said to be a press statement by the University of Oregon saying that you have prepared a paper saying, inter alia, that what you describe as “cultural resistance” at “individual level” to the notion of spending large sums on attempting to prevent global warming is something that “must be recognized and treated”.
Yet I invite you to understand that those of us who are doubters have good scientific and economic reason for our doubts.
First, there is good evidence that the principal conclusions of all four IPCC assessment reports are erroneous, and that two of these conclusions may be fraudulent.
Secondly, the IPCC’s predictions first made a generation ago have proven to be considerable exaggerations. What you have described as a “massive threat” appears to be non-existent. What was predicted is not happening at anything like the predicted rate.
Thirdly, the IPCC’s very high climate sensitivity estimates depend upon the assumption that temperature feedbacks that cannot be either measured or distinguished from direct forcings will triple those forcings, whereas the remarkable homeostasis of temperatures over at least the last 64 million years suggests either that feedbacks are net-negative or that the feedback-amplification equation (taken from electronic circuitry) is inapplicable to the climate, in which event equilibrium warming at CO2 doubling will be 1 Celsius degree, which is harmless and beneficial, and 21st-century warming from this cause will be little more than half the equilibrium warming.
Fourthly, the peer-reviewed economic journals are near-unanimous in finding that the cost of attempting to prevent global warming will greatly exceed the cost of doing nothing now and instead adapting in a focused way to any climate-related damage that may occur as a result of future global warming. My own calculations indicate that the cost of action now is likely to exceed the cost of focused adaptation later by one or two orders of magnitude.
I am uneasy that you should have recommended what the University of Oregon’s press notice is said to describe as “treatment” for those with whom you disagree. In Europe, within living memory, there were two totalitarian regimes that subjected legitimate scientific dissenters to “treatment”. You will forgive me for saying that humanity should surely not sink to those cruel and fatal depths of government-mandated unreason ever again.
I hope you will be able either to assure me either that the report I have read is inaccurate or that you are withdrawing or at least amending the paper”
Monckton has not of course received a reply. Featherbrain Norgaard probably did not even understand most of it
==========================================

(http://sociology.uoregon.edu/faculty/index.php)tribal environmental health, race and environment, gender and environment,climate change denial, emotions and social movements
Oh my. Looking at the rest of the nest, she’s probably a moderate!
The noise you hear is the sound of your tax dollars heading down the toilet.
I have a good idea though. Why don’t we hand power over to a world government made up of endless committees staffed “scientists” like Kari? What could possibly go wrong?

Oh dear, bunny boiler season again…“Dear President Obama:
…a primary recommendation of my report commissioned by the World Bank on climate denial is that policymakers should not wait for public opinion to take necessary action…”http://www.whitman.edu/content/magazine/in-their-words/dearmrpresident/norgaard
So, it appears, she not only wants an end to democracy, but is also working for the World Bank, which is owned by the wealth elite.
There is also a better picture of Kari at the head of the article 😉

Sociology and intelligence seem to be a contradiction in terms. In an essay called The Psychologisation of Dissent: The Global Warming Skepticism Mental Disorder, by Brendan O’Neill in 2009 is the following:
“And nothing better sums up the elitism and authoritarianism of the environmentalist lobby than its psychologisation of dissent. The labeling of any criticism of the politics of global warming, first as ‘denial’, and now as evidence of mass psychological instability, is an attempt to write off all critics and sceptics as deranged, and to lay the ground for inevitable authoritarian solutions to the problem of climate change.
“Historically, only the most illiberal and misanthropic regimes have treated disagreement and debate as signs of mental ill-health.”
“The labeling of those who question certain scientific ideas or green ways of life as ‘deniers’, ‘addicts’ and ‘reptiles’ with a ‘baffling’ inability to understand the science and act accordingly has a deeply censorious bent. If ‘climate change denial’ is a form of mass denial and self-deception, a fundamentally psychological disorder, then there is no need to engage in a meaningful public debate; instead people just need to be TREATED.”
“Psychologising dissent, and refusing to recognise, much less engage with, the substance of people’s disagreements – their political objections, their rational criticisms, their desire to do things differently – is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes.
“In the Soviet Union, outspoken critics of the ruling party were frequently tagged as mentally disordered and faced, as one Soviet dissident described it, ‘political exile to mental institutions’ (11). There they would be TREATED …”
Its about a gathering in 2009 at the University of West England’s Centre for Psycho-Social (B*****t) Studies. “It will be a gathering of those from the “top of society” – ‘psychotherapists, social researchers, climate change activists, eco-psychologists’ – who will analyse those at the bottom of society, as if we were so many flitting, irrational amoeba under an eco-microscope.”http://www.sott.net/articles/show/179393-The-Psychologisation-of-Dissent-The-Global-Warming-Skepticism-Mental-Disorder

Mr.Bromley; Here’s the link for an explanation of environmental sociology, if you can stomach it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_sociology
It helps enormously to put on a black turtle neck shirt, a beret, a overly large pair of sunglasses and some nice bongo drum music in the background. /sarc

@ g2-e1dac56eda01bae75bf1f4ea5d7fa0d6
“Tall and tan and young and lovely, the girl from Ipanema goes walking
And when she passes, each one she passes goes – ah
When she walks, she’s like a samba that swings so cool and sways so gently
That when she passes, each one she passes goes – aah
Ooh But he watches so sadly, How can he tell her he loves her,
Yes he would give his heart gladly,
but instead when she walks to the sea,
she looks straight ahead not at him,
Tall, and tan, and young, and lovely, the girl from Ipanema goes walking
And when she passes, he smiles – but she doesn’t see>
Astrud Gilberto – – I was so much in love with her. I’ve still got the album 🙂

She will soon need to “treated” herself for “climate change denial” as the climate is indeed changing but not in the direction she and many of her dishonest, rent seeking scholars had hoped for.
Kari, keep your eyes on the global thermometer and let us know in a few years your views about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as well as the IPCC scenarios V observations. I will not expect any denial from you.

@George
You know that you can have some fun with people who head down the “Have you got a PhD? I have” route. It’s probably not fair and may be considered as cruelty to dumb animals, but it’s fun.
“Wow! You’ve got a PhD? That’s great! Which university?” “Oh. I haven’t heard of that college. Is that like a university? Is their PhD better than high school graduation?” “You’re obviously intelligent, why didn’t you go to Harvard or Stanford. I’ve heard that MIT is quite good, too”. It would be much easier to be recognised with one of their degrees.”
Drive them mad

There are other friends besides Google Cache. You can always make a request here on WUWT and maybe find someone who has mad a screet capture and stored it on their PC.http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

Why do these people find it so hard to understand that scepticism is the very definition of a scientist’s approach? – or should be. But it’s not, of course, about the science.
On the Amazon page for her Kari’s book “living in Denial’: http://www.amazon.com/Living-Denial-Climate-Emotions-Everyday/dp/0262515857
There is one damning review, suggesting the book would serve as a decent fire brick, but it takes a while to scroll down there.
Meanwhile the reader is subjected to a raft of glowing reviews form the mainstream media and all the ususal suspects. Is it normal for Amazon to list so many glowing reviews for a book? I don’t remember seeing this before.

“Something is going on behind the scenes that we aren’t privy to yet.”
Indeed– they have discovered that they hired a complete nutcase with symptoms of a “Manson Family” type psychotic permagrin. They are now in FULL CYA MODE.

Richard says:
April 3, 2012 at 3:36 am
It’s probably not fair and may be considered as cruelty to dumb animals, but it’s fun.
“Wow — you’ve got a doctorate in Philosophy? Say, what is it with that Kierkegaard fella and the paradox he posits with the knight of faith?”
Then wait for it. As soon as he starts talking about a “night of faith” — pounce.

If she wrote her bio, she can not spell climate change: climate chage.
I notice here that on one seems to be saying how ugly she is. The other blogs about her have 50% of posts relating to her ugliness. See nice people at WUWT.
I myself do not think it is right to have a go at her because of her unfortunate looks. Poor girl, I wonder if she has ever had a boy friend? Hmm maybe that is her real problem.

Richard, you must visit Ipenema – the girls ARE fantastic (I guess the men are too, for a woman). The irony is that this song was written as a parody of Bossa Nova and became it’s prime example. It’s my theory, that is mine, that the melody mimics the way Brazilians speak, long at one end, thick in the middle and … oh, wait, Monty Python attack!

“When I hear the word (sociologist) I reach for my revolver” (pace Otto von Bismarck). In these matters, prevention is the only cure… craven and dishonest as this eco-wacko is, the institution that harbors her and many another of her ilk is far more so.

Since Dr. Norgaard recommends a compact urban lifestyle for us, I’d be interested in seeing the way she lives. Does she practice what she preaches or does she have a 2000 sq.ft. house with 2 car garage and one acre of land? I get tired of the Al Gores and Barbra Streisands of the world telling us how to live while they guzzle down their wine and expand their CO2 footprint! And she’s using taxpayer money to fund this ‘research’. (face palm)
Dr. Norgaard, heal thyself first, let me worry about my family and my own lifestyle.

It’s interesting that if you search for Norgaard and click ’email me’, it goes to a new email address (it has a 1 on the end of it). I think Morano’s or your publishing of her email address might be the root cause :).

The proper forum for change, and the discussion thereof, is at the voting booth and in opinion pieces. Short references to violence, even when made in jest, are inappropriate. A substantive comment moves us along much further than some of the comments I have read here.
My voting record put people like this sociologist in places of influence and has funneled my own tax dollars to universities that obviously place a premium on nonsensical research such as this woman’s research efforts.
My enemy is me, not this woman. Buyer beware.

When you think about it all one sees is another person making money off the scare. Studying climate change denial is her occupation. Unless she believes it is real she has to admit her entire life’s work is garbage. Very similar position as many climate scientists. Their egos and occupation depend on continue to claim climate change is real. The temperature could drop by 5° and she’s still be making the same claims.

minor correction:
Although she still appears of the sociology faculty page listing at:
s/b
Although she still appears on the sociology faculty page listing at:
How did an obscure article from UofO end up with a London release?

We will be told this article was: “…just a thought experiment” and not to be taken literally. It was designed as part of a sociology study to observe how groups react to “extreme” views. Thank you for participating in my research.”

I imagine that Kari is very familiar with the works of George Orwell as it would appear she uses his works as blueprints or templates instead of the warmings they were meant to be. In any case, she could be just another Marxist revisionist. This situation is ugly indeed.

I was thinking of writing to Kari’s boss about flinging around the R word with such serendipity but then I thought the better of it-http://sociology.uoregon.edu/faculty/hollander.php
and if I was having any second thoughts about it whatsoever-http://sociology.uoregon.edu/cv/hollander.pdf
Only concentrated sunlight will drive these lunar space invaders back beneath the moon rocks from whence they came. The sociology of food??? It’s like this Jocelyn. As my dear departed mum used to remind us occasionally when we were dithering around with our food like sociologists- ‘Sit up and eat up properly you lot because if you don’t eat you don’t s#*t and if you don’t s#*t you die!’ and we didn’t go to gender spaces to wash our hands before and after. What on earth was your mum teaching your mob?

imo, She’s a shrink (of some sort, I suppose) and as such would have no unique first hand knowledge of climate. I doubt she has the CV to determine the validity of CAGW. She would have to know and be able to prove CAGW as portrayed is true. Amazingly, she didn’t go after the people that made polar bears rain from the sky, those blowing up children or those that allowed children to be taught the lies of the Gore movie. I suppose this is all normal communications to her and those at UO protecting her. And I’m the nut, eh?
I think, therefore I deny.

@ Carbonbased:
“Nothing can be tested and nothing disproved. How is it so attractive to so many seemingly intelligent people?”
You answered your own question. It’s attractive precisely because nothing can be tested nor disproved. It’s human nature. People don’t like other people calling their baby ugly.

Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of science in that fawning interview. Which, of course, only reinforces the point of John Brignell’s excellent 2007 essay (cited above), “Global Warming as Religion and not Science” (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm). One has to wonder how this academic acolyte, Kari Marie Norgaard, would deal one-on-one with a real scientist, like Richard Lindzen. Would she recoil in horror, and recommend him for ‘treatment’?
Since she claims to be an expert in the sociology of ‘deniers’, do you suppose she reads WUWT?
“Hey, Miz Norgaard! How about responding here? Perhaps you’d like to take a crack at the scientific critiques of the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? No fair appealing to authority, or ‘consensus’, or making up claims of funding by oil companies, or using the word ‘denier’ now. Just show us what observations actually support the CAGW hypothesis (assuming it is one, and not just speculation), and explain how it might actually be falsified. And be prepared to discuss your evidence with some of the real scientists who regularly post here.”
I won’t hold my breath.
/Mr Lynn

Tenuk, thanks for posting that letter to Obama. Barmy isn’t the word…. She starts off:
“Dear President Obama: First of all, I’d like to say thank you for taking our environment seriously. At this point, our most profound moral, economic and social obligation is to bring climate change under control.”
How to address the delusions of anyone who thinks you can control the climate? She proceeds to advise Obama to listen in particular to James Hansen. The Gaia help us all …

Dr. Norgaard has been discovered by Rush Limbaugh. I’d not be surprised that her links would be pulled. but for some valid reasons having nothing to do with her being over the top in her climate enthusiasm. It is very hard on web servers to be linked or referenced by widely followed pop culture celebs.
Dr. Norgaard’s writings are an embarrassment of riches for the U of O. She appears to be her own worst enemy.

Speculation on the last thing Professor Norgaard heard at work:
Your services are no longer needed Professor Norgaard. Your contribution to the cause has been great, I’m sure you will agree that you now must step down for the collective good. Take some time off, let this thing die down, and we will find you a place behind the scenes befitting your sacrifice. Thank you very much for your service, it’s not easy to sacrifice your integrity and reputation for such a noble cause, you should be proud.

Must mean something.
They’ve been at it for forty years.
Been indoctrinating kids from their Sesame Street days.
Complete control of the media.
and most of the world’s money.
Still not enough?
I know, let’s boil the deniers in oil. That should do it.

Initial Server Error? Does that mean Kari’s staff served portabello shrooms instead of the magic ones at the Planet Under Pressure Conference? That would explain any hateful emails. This is starting to make sense…..

I originally posted this in another thread, but I think it was snipped for being OT (fair enough), it’s apposite here though. Have you all seen this interview with James Lovelock from 2010?http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
“We need a more authoritative world. We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that. You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.
But it can’t happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What’s the alternative to democracy? There isn’t one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
I use to think ‘Ecofascism’ was a little silly and hysterical, but it doesn’t seem so any more

Len says:
April 2, 2012 at 11:18 pm
When I started university in the 1960′s social sciences were mostly a joke already.
I was in business school in the early 70’s getting a Master’s and the business prof and econ prof put together a joint class with about half business majors and half econ majors. The idea was to propose a problem and then come up with joint econ/business solutions, hoping each discipline would learn from the other.
One of the problems regarded the high price of oil at the time due to the first oil embargo. Things got pretty confusing until finally the business professor asked the following question: “If plenty of oil was discovered and prices were able to fall despite the embargo, who here would think letting the price fall would be a good thing to do, and who would like to see the price remain high to reduce usage?”
Virtually all of the business students wanted to let the price fall back to “normal” and nearly all of the economics majors wanted to see prices remain high anyway. That was my first exposure to the efficacy of mass indoctrination. This war on oil has been going on for a long time in the social sciences.

the common logical fallacy that weaves together all the others is called ‘argument from intimidation’
the use of the word ‘denialist’ is a prime example.
perhaps the most ridiculous example i’ve heard came from the mouth of an msnbc employee named taure, whose definitive argument was ‘you know, everybody at msnbc was in the hall laughing at you’
of course, willis can claim priority over taure – he has used ‘pointing their fingers at you and laughing’ as part of his fatuous trollery.
as soon as i recognize mendacity, the argument is dismissed but the value it has for defining the character of the individual is there.

proskeptic says:
I originally posted this in another thread, but I think it was snipped for being OT (fair enough), it’s apposite here though..
Indeed!
Just check the comment from Norgaard herself:
“Wired.com: So we don’t want to believe climate change is happening, feel guilty that it is, and don’t know what to do about it? So we pretend it’s not a problem?Norgaard: Yes, but I don’t want to make it seem crass. Sometimes people who are very empathetic are less likely to help in certain situations, because they’re so disturbed by it. The human capacity of empathy is really profound, and that’s part of our weakness. If we were more callous, then we’d approach it in a more straightforward way. It may be a weakness of our capacity as sentient beings to cope with this problem.”
Those like Norgaard are the people by whom, and for whom, the 10:10 “No Pressure” video was produced. Plays to their fantasy for a more callous and straightforward approach toward those who disagree. The unfortunate truth is, if you try to give people an excuse to disregard their empathy, sometimes enough of them will that very ugly crimes against humanity are committed.
“Sociology” doesn’t seem to have much capacity for self evaluation.

Frankly, this entire matter is an indictment of education in America, and Oregon in particular. Norgaard has an undergraduate degree in Biology and a Masters in sociology. She has morphed those relatively minor credentials into a a series of courses critical of Western civilization, environmental justice, minority environmental justice, gender environmental justice, and similar endeavors of absolutely no value and no foundation. I suspect this is what ‘sociology’ in now in its entirety. A useless amalgamation of politically correct opinions and not an academic endeavor at all.

“the “send email” link for Norgaard goes to a uoregon.edu email address. On the current page, it goes to a yahoo.com email address. If they were trying to shield her from hateful email, why shift it to a private email account?”
Because at yahoo, it’s immune from FOIA. They might move ALL of her email to there…..

I can’t help reading this article and these comments and being more than just a little upset. Since when is being good to the earth a bad thing? And we have not been good to the earth – I don’t think that point is very arguable. I do not appreciate the many personal attacks that Prof. Norgaard is receiving. Because feedback has been so hostile and hateful, the pages hosting her article and staff information have been removed. There is no conspiracy. Just someone trying to express what she believes in and instead becoming the subject of an unprecedented tirade.
When did respect and understanding lose it’s place in the value of freedom of speech? Not impressed.

The climate is changing, and it will always change! We have solar fluctuations, changes in polar orientation and the angle of the planet as it rotates around the sun, geological activity, and the human input. It’s not that you have to get people to accept people as the cause, but that you have to get people to accept that they do not live in a steady-state environment.
It’s sad and pathetic to suggest that people need treatment, when what they need is to move away from science as opinion and towards science as a discussion and exposition of the reality of the situation. The only thing I want to be treated to is Lunch!

hannahmdejong says:
April 3, 2012 at 9:46 am
When did respect and understanding lose it’s place in the value of freedom of speech? Not impressed.
First of all, show us where Ms. Dr. Norgaard is fostering respect for her fellow humans. You’re right, being good to the planet is not a bad thing. And you’re right again, Norgaard is free to express her opinion. But for her to pretend that her “scholarship” may become basis for policy, is to cast aside any pretence of free speech. The anti-conceptual glurge she calls scholarship is very dangerous indeed.
“Because feedback has been so hostile and hateful, the pages hosting her article and staff information have been removed” puts the cart before the horse. This thread is ABOUT the removal, not its cause. FAIL.

@wfrumkin
I am personally offended…. I am in the process of searching for a college to send one of my children to.
I too am offended. I have put in more than 10 years studying climate change, applying the same criteria I taught to my graduate students on how to evaluate research. In the end, I found nothing definitive in the pro CAGW literature that warrants any kind of government action at this time. Accordingly, I wondered how a “scholar” like Professor Norgaard could arrive at the conclusions she has. Consequently, I WAS, at least, able to find out a bit more about Norgaard. See below:
Kari Norgaard’s dissertation has the following title: “Community, Place and Privilege: Double Realities, Denial and Climate Change in Norway.” It was submitted in 2003 at the University of Oregon.
You can find an abstract of her dissertation at the following web address:http://disccrs.org/dissertation_abstract?abs_id=1425
The dissertation was basically a descriptive, survey-style study of people in “Bygdaby, a rural Norwegian community.” It begins with the premise that “despite the fact that people were clearly aware of global warming as a phenomenon, everyday life went on as though global warming, and its associated risks – did not exist.”
Hmmm. Assuming that the people accepted the idea of global warming as an imminent threat in Bygdaby, what else were they to do? Stay in bed and cover their head? Carry signs on the street proclaiming that the end is near? Speaking as someone who has worked in the fields of psychology and social work professionally for 30+ years, I can say definitively that maintaining daily routines in the face of worries and anxieties is a therapeutic and adaptive response. So, what is the point of such a study? What does it contribute to the field of social work?
I have not read her dissertation, itself, but the premise was based upon IPCC data from 2001 that climate change was real and was resulting in “potential outcomes” for the country of Norway. The fact that a study with a premise of this kind was approved by her dissertation committee at the University of Oregon tells you all you need to know about its objectivity, the university, its department of sociology and the academic standards they have for PhD candidates.
A recent paper (2010) by Professor Norgaard is entitled “Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to Climate Change.” The paper is described as a “Policy Research Working Paper” and was written as a background paper to the 2010 World Development Report issued by the “The World Bank, Development Economics, World Development Report Team.” It is one of the first things that comes up when you google “Norgaard.” I’ll assume that the World Bank paid for Norgaard’s background paper although I don’t know for sure.
At the end of the 2010 report’s abstract, the following disclaimer is posted:
“This paper—prepared as a background paper to the World Bank’s World Development Report 2010: Development in a Changing Climate—is a product of the Development Economics Vice Presidency. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the World Bank or its affiliated organizations. Policy Research Working Papers are posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The author may be contacted at jmeadowc@connect.carleton.ca.”
In the paper, Norgaard discusses the various “barriers” to people behaving differently in the face of what she perceives to be an imminent climate disaster. Not surprisingly, she lists “the generation of climate skeptic campaigns funded by fossil fuel interest groups” as one of the barriers. She identifies “The oil company Exxon Mobile” as a prime example of “this phenomenon in which fossil fuel interests systematically manipulate government documents and carry out campaigns of misinformation regarding the state of climate science.”
Has Exxon Mobile actually been manipulating government documents to foist misinformation upon us? If this is, in fact, true, I’d like to know more about it and see some proof.
Also not surprisingly, Norgaard lists ignorance of the problem (i.e. “Americans know far less about climate change than their counterparts in the developed world.”) and affluence (i.e. “Concern is widespread around the world, but it may also be inversely correlated with the wealth and carbon footprint of a nation.”) as barriers. Its not hard to see where all of that leads.
I suspect that she is sincere, although obviously biased, quite naive, and misguided. She has, unfortunately, allowed herself to be used as someone else’s political tool, and her conclusions (that people who are skeptical of CAGW are in need of therapy) are extraordinarily DANGEROUS, IMHO. If the University of Oregon and its sociology department wish to retain any credibility, they will issue a statement disavowing her conclusions that people need therapy for their skepticism.

hannahmdejong @ April 3, 2012 at 9:46 am says:
“Just someone trying to express what she believes in and instead becoming the subject of an unprecedented tirade.
When did respect and understanding lose it’s place in the value of freedom of speech? Not impressed.”
I was not impressed by the original official University of Oregon statement that skeptics need to be “treated” for their skepticism. I am sure you are right that the links were disabled because of a backlash aimed at Prof. Norgaard and the U of O, but can you blame anyone for being upset by such a Kafkaesque statement? There is no respect and understanding on the U of O’s part in their belief that skeptics require treatment.

Anyone watching Climate Ethics professor Donald Brown at Penn State. His rants about ethics and putting people on trial for crimes against humanity, a farce given the misery this anti-human agenda is causing real live people, needs to be looked at just as hard. I dont mind a debate on the actual matter, but when someone who is oblivious to things because he wont look starts questioning ethics and morals, and doing it on PSU letterhead, funded by taxpayers, then its the same thing

I asked Jim Barlow, director of science and research communications, University of Oregon when and why the sentence was changed. Here’s his response:
“I intended the original first sentence of the news release to function as a play-on-words on our researcher’s message about recognizing and addressing cultural inertia. Unfortunately, the word “treated” became the focus of the story, leading to inaccurate portrayals. In an effort to shift the focus back to the actual topic of the conference presentation, I chose at midday Monday to remove the word from the version of the news release that appears on our website.”

Seems like a good thread for one of my favorite quotes:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C. S. Lewis

Hannah” “Since when is being good to the earth a bad thing?”
DDT Ban. Rachel Carson.
“A pandemic is slaughtering millions, mostly children and pregnant women — one child every 15 seconds; 3 million people annually; and over 100 million people since 1972 –but there are no protestors clogging the streets or media stories about this tragedy. These deaths can be laid at the doorstep of author Rachel’s Carson. Her 1962 bestselling book Silent Spring detailed the alleged “dangers” of the pesticide DDT, which had practically eliminated malaria. Within ten years, the environmentalist movement had convinced the powers that be to outlaw DDT. Denied the use of this cheap, safe and effective pesticide, millions of people — mostly poor Africans — have died due to the environmentalist dogma propounded by Carson’s book. Her coterie of admirers at the U.N. and environmental groups such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund and the Environmental Defense Fund have managed to bring malaria and typhus back to sub-Saharan Africa with a vengeance.”http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=16987

The big difference between this episode of “treatment” and “no pressure” was that “no pressure” was alleged to be an attempt at humor. The “treatment” was intended to be serious. In both cases I felt that they had unintentionally told us more about themselves than their cause. They would control us if they could. They would do terrible things.
As for her photograph, I’m grateful that people have not made fun of her condition. I have a severe curvature of the spine which makes a rather obvious hump when I bend over and so I can relate. I am deeply appreciative that the people around me don’t make fun of it. Science is about the way to evaluate data and learn something, and one’s physical condition doesn’t have anything to do do with it. An argument or hypothesis should stand or fall on its own merits.
I am now very curious to see how this story plays out. They know they did a boo boo. They tried/are trying to memory hole it unsuccessfully, drawing even more attention. I think I need more popcorn 🙂

Len says:
…..
I hope mathematics and engineering are still real, but I do worry.

I’m terribly sorry to have to report but since the work of the proto-communist Leonard Euler in the 18th Century, it appears that mathematics and engineering have both real and imaginary parts.
I should get some nerd points for that joke, who knows?

If you want to have a few more laughs with this come see us at The Two Minute Conservative at: http://adrianvance.blogspot.com
These people seriously intend to live in a “Brave New World” and/or “1984.”

Hannah, Your definition of good to the earth is not my definition of good to the earth. You and the unperson Kari need to learn how to deal with this in a sociological acceptible way. By which I mean left alone and “untreated”. What Kari espouses is ridiculous and probably illegal. Just deal with it.

hannahmdejong says:
April 3, 2012 at 9:46 am
“…Because feedback has been so hostile and hateful, the pages hosting her article and staff information have been removed.”
Maybe Prof. Norgaard Is unable to Answer the blatantly obvious questions;
Why does she believe that ‘inquiry’ and or scientific difference is a problem that needs to be treated?
What is her recommended treatment for this?
And how would she suggest society go about treating It?
People are hostile because those who bear the brunt of such ‘ideologically fascist’ statements are having none of it, and rightly so.
And as Anthony say’s; “Apparently, the maelstrom of embarrassment and public ridicule created by Kari Marie Norgaard, professor of sociology and environmental studies at the University of Oregon was too much for the University to bear.”.
So, hannahmdejong, Please do remind us all again who you think are the bad guy’s are!! [ffs]

Andrew Bolt quotes her: “People are individually and collectively habituated to the ways we act and think. This habituation must be recognized and simultaneously addressed at the individual, cultural and societal level — how we think the world works and how we think it should work.”
We cannot deny her point that many of us have become habituated to private property, the profitable use of our own private property, wealth, energy, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion, plus that other freedom, to peacably assemble at excellent blogsites. She has a firm grasp on the basic concept of habituation – very good!
Now that she has finished her paper on a fictitiously named town in Northern Europe, her next assignment is to study the recent response of the citizens to a systematic impoverishment scheme by their government in Queensland, Au. It turns out, they agree with her – politicians certainly do need to be de-habituated from positions of power when they implement socially and economically destructive green scams which raise prices on water and electricity and destroy productivity and employment.

As has been said by many people about conservatives and liberals. At this stage Alarmists want Skeptics to shut up but Skeptice want Alarmists to keep talking. The more BS and socialist totalitarian ideas they come up with the more they are exposed for what they really are.

Norgard really just wants to be able to concentrate on helping people, and if people don’t like that, she wants to be able to commit them to psychiatric hospitals. Or prisons. Or kill them.
That said, [SNIP: sorry, but comments like that are a bit inappropriate. -REP].

Re hannahmdejong @ April 3, 2012 at 9:46 am:
Hannah, let us suppose you lived in a land of cattle herders where all of the people in power were convinced by seers and prophets that in order to reverse the decline of your people under foreign oppression, it was necessary to destroy all the cattle, and all the other implements of living: cooking pots, etc. Suppose, however, you and a few others were rational enough to realize that, not only would the solution be ineffective, but idea that the gods required such an enormous sacrifice was false, and you were being misled.
Now imagine that when you spoke up, you were accused of being cruelly insensitive to the needs of your people, and probably insane, in need of treatment. Would you not take umbrage?
This is not an imaginary example. A people called the Xhosa effectively committed suicide by following those seers and prophets. See the reprint of chilling article by David Deming on this very site: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-parallels-in-our-time-the-killing-of-of-cattle-vs-carbon/
The current situation is analogous. A quasi-religious cult has seized upon a wild and unproven speculation that mankind is heating up the Earth’s climate by burning fossil fuel, convincing rent-seeking academics, greedy politicians, and a gullible media that we need to stop progress in its tracks, abandon the sources of energy that have led to the vast improvements in the human condition over the past two centuries, and return to some imaginary bucolic and innocent life, free from the sins of the modern world.
Now we have your colleague at the University of Oregon suggesting that a few unfunded and unaffiliated scientists, who maintain that the speculation of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is empirically baseless, are in need of ‘treatment’.
Now do you see why the reaction is so strong?
If you don’t see how close the CAGW and its broader ‘environmental’ movement are to an unscientific theocratic orthodoxy, read this: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
Then decide if you really want to be part of it.
/Mr Lynn

You do not have to be privy to the inner workings of the university of Oregon to appreciate what happened.
Someone realised, finally, that such lunatic ravings, in addition to ridiculing the university, are also a violation of the free speech provisions of the Constitution.
As a non American I was amazed at the violation and how it passed unseen in comments. You do not like what someone says, you treat him, says the professor. You cannot get more blatanta trampling of free speech than that.

“I intended the original first sentence of the news release to function as a play-on-words (it was a JOKE people!) on our researcher’s message about recognizing and addressing cultural inertia. Unfortunately, the word “treated” became the focus (How dare you draw conclusions based on current and past views of the author.) of the story, leading to inaccurate portrayals.(If I say it enough, even I start to believe it.) In an effort to shift the focus back to the actual topic (Sigh, we just can’t pretty up “Gulag”.) of the conference presentation, I chose (I knew what she meant, not you morons.) at midday Monday to remove the word from the version of the news release that appears on our website.”
There, hope this helps.

Why does everyone use Godwin’s Law or compare this scam to the Soviet Union? Honestly, I could go into this, but this is a science blog, not a history one, and I’ll tell you now that the Soviet Union wasn’t even that bad, and it nowhere near had as bad misinformation as this. They launched the first satellite in space, so obviously they weren’t that “brainwashed”.

http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treated-says-professor/
Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor
Global warming alarmist equates climate denial with racism
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, March 30, 2012
“Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”.
Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.”
“As Jurriaan Maessen documented yesterday, the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ confab at which Norgaard is appearing to push this insane drivel is nothing other than a strategy session for neo-eugenicists to hone their population control agenda.
A statement put out by the scientists behind the event calls for humans to be packed into denser cities (eco-gulags?) so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature. It’s a similar idea to the nightmare ‘Planned-Opolis’ proposal put out by the Forum for the Future organization last year, in which human activity will be tightly regulated by a dictatorial technocracy in the name of saving the planet.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
The mindset of this gaggle of arrogant, scoffing elitists in their drive to micro-manage the human race, which they regard as a plague on the earth, is best encapsulated by the following quote from ‘Planet Under Pressure’ attendee and Yale University professor Karen Seto.
“We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together],” ”
==============================================
I haven’t been able to find a copy of the paper she gave.

If it were just one professor, or one Sociology Dept., or one university, one might take some comfort that the attitudes Dr. Norgaard expressed where an aberration. However, the fact that her sociological sisters and brothers can be found in every Sociology Dept. at every university in the U.S., and probably the U.K. and Europe too, gives cause for alarm.
If you don’t believe this, go to any university’s website, go to the Sociology Dept. and read the CV’s. So it’s not really about her, it’s about the belief she expresses.

I have solved the mystery of AGW-ish stuff. It’s all cyclical. It is necessary to defeat the inexorable rise of liberalism/communism-fueled hysteria once every half generation (~ 30-50 years). It takes them that long to regroup, recruit a new army of uneducated bots, and get a new BS narrative going.

The CAGW monstrosity is the invader, attacking science and reason itself, and attempting to ensconce itself in the halls of academia, and government. But skeptics/climate realists are at the forefront of a fierce and ever-growing resistance to that. Thankfully, the resistance movement is winning, despite the odds, and despite the near-unlimited resources of the enemy. It is laughable that they think any sort of “campaign” outing that resistance will help them. Funnier still that they have thoughts of “treatment” of resisters. They are losing, and they know it.

@Shooter says:
April 3, 2012 at 3:03 pm“Why does everyone use Godwin’s Law or compare this scam to the Soviet Union? Honestly, I could go into this, but this is a science blog, not a history one, and I’ll tell you now that the Soviet Union wasn’t even that bad, and it nowhere near had as bad misinformation as this. They launched the first satellite in space, so obviously they weren’t that “brainwashed”.”
==================================================================
I’ll have to agree with you on that point, Shooter. The Soviets weren’t all that big on brainwashing..
But take a look at the following:http://www.ukemonde.com/news/rferl.html
There was no need for brainwashing when there were other cheaper and quicker methods for those “not with the program.”

Who cam blame Prof. Norgaard? Look at the reams of money the stodgy old climate science department has attracted with their computer models (that everybody knows are hogwash). Who wouldn’t want a heaping slice of that pie? Of course, personal integrity has to be shucked off like yesterday’s stinky drawers. But then, they can be washed and refreshed in the stream of consensus and good intentions, or so she thought.

What on Earth do gender or race have to do with climate change?! Let me guess: evil white men are the great destroyers and everyone else properly worships mother Gaia. I’m getting too old for this sh!t.

@Shooter says:
April 3, 2012 at 3:03 pm
I’ll tell you now that the Soviet Union wasn’t even that bad, and it nowhere near had as bad misinformation as this.
OT, I know, but this sort of revisionism should not go unnoticed.
No Shooter, as H.R. points out, it was much, much worse.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression_in_the_Soviet_Union

wfrumkin says:
April 2, 2012 at 9:41 pm
…..I am in the process of searching for a college to send one of my children to. Needless to say, that one is off the list. I would appreciate suggestions for which top 100 universities is safe to send a child to.
________________________________________
YOu want a private college that recieves no public funding to start and then vet them carefully.http://www.collegeatlas.org/types-of-colleges.html

GeologyJim says:
April 2, 2012 at 10:09 pm
wfrumkin –
By all means, send your offspring to Hillsdale College.
____________________________________________
Good recommendation. I was trying to think of their name.

DirkH says:
April 2, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Ah, on that Wired piece:
“Kari Norgaard: On the one hand, there have been extremely well-organized, well-funded climate-skeptic campaigns. Those are backed by Exxon Mobil in particular, and the same PR firms who helped the tobacco industry (.pdf) deny the link between cancer and smoking are involved with magnifying doubt around climate change.”
She’s another Gleick, inventing smears.
______________________
She used a PDF from the Union of Concerned Dogs ScientistsSmoke, Mirrors
& Hot Air
How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics
to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Sciencehttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

i dont know about exxon or other big companies funding skeptic campaigns but i did read an interesting book by Ron Arnold called Undue Influence that shows the path of the green movements as they are started and funded by “the powers that be” , the charitable trusts .
the trusts started out as the old bucaneers of the 19th century for the most part . the old guy was rough and tough , but his kids and theirs are “educated and refined ” and believe in being nice and social . into the humanities , giving to hospitals etc , and recently the green movement . especially wildlands project and climate change , just great people generally . however they want to take over the world and are busy doing it .
their attitude is one of total contempt for the general population which you also see in present day greenies . what they do is okay but what we do is not .one earmark of a socialist is that they always want much control . these people at the earth under pressure conference are all into what norgard is into . lots of social engineering . quite the crowd .

Lets investigate a little;
“I intended the original first sentence of the news release to function as a play-on-words on our researcher’s message about recognizing and addressing cultural inertia. Unfortunately, the word “treated” became the focus of the story, leading to inaccurate portrayals. In an effort to shift the focus back to the actual topic of the conference presentation, I chose at midday Monday to remove the word from the version of the news release that appears on our website.”
[play-on-words. cultural inertia??] “an effort to shift the focus back to the actual topic” What’s the topic? A play-on-words. cultural inertia?? Hm… Okay, Lets investigate a little more.

Ms. Norgaard writes;“Listen to your science adviser
Thank you for welcoming scientists back into the White House. The recognition that science rather than corporate interests must inform public policy is a critical move for both our decision-making on climate change and the state of our nation’s democracy. At this juncture we need science more than ever. Fortunately you have made an excellent choice in commissioning Harvard physicist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient John Holdren as your science adviser. Last month Holdren presented you with a letter from NASA scientist James Hansen. Hansen is probably the best-known high level scientist to speak on the dangers of climate change. His letter concerns the urgency of stopping climate change, and a plea to base our nation’s climate policy on scientific data. Please listen to Holdren and Hansen.”
———————–
This lady is a real piece of work. I love how she deigns to tell the President who to listen to. Ms. Norgaard doesn’t seen to understand where ‘progressive’ politics end and actual science begins nor does she seem to care to find out. Above she takes a thinly veiled swipe at the Bush administration by invoking the myth that they had a “war on science,” which comes staight out of Donk talking points. She also assumes somehow that “corporate interest” are necessarilly divergent from science. Don’t corporations utilize science to develop and produce product? One might also have caught her implication that science is somehow by definition pro-democracy.

My apologies if this is duplicate, but I didn’t see it on first pass through the voluminous (and rightly so) comments…
The Planet Under Pressure organizers (PUPo’s) apparently remain pleased with the University of Oregon’s original press release and continue to post it here: http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/pr_26_03_12_cultural_inertia.pdf
Say it loud and say it proud – or so it seems for PUPo’s. Presuming we accept Mr. Barlow’s explanation of play-on-words malfunction, Professor Norgaard et al. (2012) postulate the following in their “Climate change and cultural inertia:”
“Using ethnographic and interview data we describe the powerful processes that work at the psychological, institutional, and societal levels to maintain the current orientations and ensure social stability in spite of the evident imperative for change. This model[s] that actions are needed to engage transformations at all levels of the social order. We conclude with some suggestions for further investigations and practical suggestions about actions to address climate change.” – http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pup_session.asp?19170
And what are those practical suggestions (highly subjective phraseology) about actions to address climate change, given that they’re from socio-enviro-centric academicians? I’m still looking for a link to purchase/view/access the researchers presentation/paper, and if anyone has one, I’d appreciate the posting.

Thank you for your diligence, Anthony! We must cut these heads off the Hydra as soon as we can.
Since the story provided us with the Webmaster’s email address (webmaster@uoregon.edu), I felt it was my collegiate duty to write to them and inform them of their error, using my University of Illinois email address (hint – an email with .edu will get you to places you cannot go otherwise!)
My email said “Sorry, looks like you’ve been caught with your collective IT pants down!!” and included the link to this WUWT posting. No good reason to do that, but I don’t like idiotic academics assessing my mental state from a distance and recommending treatment.

jbird pointed to the abstract of her dissertation here:http://disccrs.org/dissertation_abstract?abs_id=1425
She is getting a lot of press because she uses the ‘denier’ word. She must know what it means to everyone, yet what she describes as denial most of us would just call apathy if the denied problem was minor. She believes that CAGW is very serious and is frustrated that others do not wish to drop everything and fight for the cause. At worst, this state of denial would be similar to that of Jews living in Germany as Hitler is coming to power. Leave now and lose everything or hope that all will work out in the end? Did those people deny there was a problem? Not at all in the same way as someone would deny the holocaust existed.
In her own words:

The term denial is sometimes used to describe the phenomenon of
outright rejection of the notion that certain information is true — which,
in this case, is the reaction of global warming skeptics mentioned earlier.
But by now it should be clear that this use of the term is very different
and more literal than my use in this book. In his recent work on denial,
British sociologist Stanley Cohen (2001) describes three varieties of
denial: literal, interpretive, and implicatory. His framework is useful in
explaining this book’s particular focus. Literal denial is “the assertion
that something did not happen or is not true” (the global warming skeptics).
In interpretive denial, the facts themselves are not denied but are
instead given a different interpretation. Euphemisms, technical jargon,
and word changing are used to dispute the meaning of events — for
example, military offi cials speak of “collateral damage” rather than the
killing of citizens. It is Cohen’s third category, implicatory denial, that
is at the center of this book. In the case of implicatory denial, what is
minimized is not information, but “the psychological, political or moral
implications that conventionally follow” (2001, 8). What I observed in
Bygdaby — indeed, what we all can observe in the public silence on
climate change in United States and around the world — is not in most
cases a rejection of information per se, but the failure to integrate this
knowledge into everyday life or to transform it into social action. As
Cohen puts it, “The facts of children starving to death in Somalia, mass
rape of women in Bosnia, a massacre in East Timor, homeless people in
our streets are recognized, but are not seen as psychologically disturbing
or as carrying a moral imperative to act. . . . Unlike literal or interpretive
denial, knowledge itself is not at issue, but doing the ‘right’ thing with
the knowledge” (2001, 9).

Tom Murphy says:
April 3, 2012 at 9:03 pmThe Planet Under Pressure organizers (PUPo’s) apparently remain pleased with the University of Oregon’s original press release and continue to post it here: http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/pr_26_03_12_cultural_inertia.pdf
…
And what are those practical suggestions (highly subjective phraseology) about actions to address climate change, given that they’re from socio-enviro-centric academicians? I’m still looking for a link to purchase/view/access the researchers presentation/paper, and if anyone has one, I’d appreciate the posting.
Haven’t been able to find it.
From the pdf
“EMBARGOED TIL 3:45 P.M. UK (10:45 a.m., Eastern; 7:45 a.m. Pacific), MONDAY, MARCH 26
Simultaneous action needed to break cultural inertia in climate-change response
LONDON — (March 26, 2012) — Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized and treated before real action can be taken to effectively address threats facing the planet from human-caused contributions to climate change.
That’s the message to this week’s Planet Under Pressure Conference by a group of speakers led by Kari Marie Norgaard, professor of sociology and environmental studies at the University of Oregon. In a news briefing Monday, Norgaard discussed her paper and issues her group will address in a session Wednesday at 2 p.m. London time (9 a.m. U.S. Eastern; 6 a.m. U.S. Pacific).”
Why was there a press embargo in the first place?
I couldn’t get any of their links to work on the page they gave in the pdf.http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pup_session.asp?19170

I might be old but I tend to remember the oddest things, some where back in the 1970’s it was noted that those people practicing as professionals to help people in a Freudian way were those most likely to commit suicide, thus it was the helpers that needed help. This woman is following in the foot steps of many as socialogy is only another branch of Freudian non sense to put the minds of all in lock step with the colony. They have a serious problem as it seems there are two types of people sheeple and others. It is the others such as Anthony that puts a burr under their saddle.

Having read Kari Marie’s article in Organization and Environment, “We Don’t Really Want to Know” I had a hard time figuring out how on earth she got a book published by MIT press. She writes like a child. Her critical thinking skills are almost non-existent and she has no grasp of how to use empirical data – both qualitative and quantitative.
I found a possible answer. She is indeed small fry. The big cheese in this is likely to be her dad, Richard Norgaard, a Berkeley professor – http://erg.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/Richard_Norgaard/CV_March_11.pdf. He appears to be exceedingly well connected including contacts with the World Bank.

Who is Kari’s dad?
Richard Norgaard:
“Professor Norgaard is an eclectic scholar with one solely authored book; several additional co-authored and co-edited books, and over 200 other publications in environmental and ecological economics, environmental sociology, environmental epistemology, and other fields. He is recognized within the field of economics (Who’s Who in Economics, Millennium Edition, and The Changing Face of Economics: Conversations with Cutting Edge Economists 2004) and the field of ecological economics (Kenneth E. Boulding Award, 2006) for both his critiques of and contributions to economics even while he spends most of his time working across disciplinary ways of understanding. The American Association for the Advancement of Science elected Norgaard to the status of “Fellow” in 2007. His research emphasizes how the resolution
of complex socio-environmental problems challenges modern beliefs about science and policy and explores development as a process of coevolution between social and environmental systems. His writing is informed through work on energy, environment, and development issues around the globe with different periods of his efforts emphasizing Alaska, Brazil, and California.
Internationally, Professor Norgaard serves on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and on the International Panel on Sustainable Resource Management of the United Nations Environment Programme.emphasis added
He was actively engaged with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and other assessment
efforts including UNEP’s The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity and UNEP’s Global Environmental Outlooks. Domestically, he chairs the Independent Science Board of the Delta Stewardship Council (formerly the CALFED Independent Science Board on which he also served), State of California, and previously served on the Science Advisory Board of the U.S. EPA (2000-2004), as a member of the U.S. committee of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), and on numerous panels of the National Research Council and the former Office of Technology Assessment. Richard Norgaard serves on the Board of Directors of the New Economics Institute, on scientific advisory boards to Tsinhua and Beijing Normal University, and on the Board of EcoEquity. He served on the Board of Directors of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (2000-2009), in the position of Treasurer (2003-2009. He served as President of the International Society for Ecological Economics (1998-2001). He served as the founding Chair of the Board of Redefining Progress (1994-97) and as a member of its board (until 2007). Professor Norgaard was a Project Specialist with the Ford Foundation in Brazil (1978 and 1979), a visiting research fellow at the World Bank (1992).

Look Folks,
It is just this simple:
WE NEED A DEBATE.
If, in the name of this “new” science (sic, Norgaard style), we are NOT allowed to even raise a question of the validity/data of a study, which clearly needs review, and are to be placed in a mental institution (a.k.a. “treated, soviet/nazi style), then we have gone completely backwards in science have reached religious dogma when we were told the earth was flat and the center of the universe and thrown in the dungeon for questioning this proven failed logic, which according to Norgaard (and many, many other religious fanatics), is the “scientific/earth stewardship “thing” to do.
We need to push forward, full blast, have the needed debate, and let the pieces either fall into the dustbin of history permanently (I’m pretty sure I know which pieces we will see in this bin), and which pieces will stay on the table of science to build a future model of understanding (not just science, but which pieces were merely shackles in disguise for an elite wishing us slavery based on anything they want to say to keep us a tool/or make us die off for their prosperity.
Peace…

TAJ says:
April 5, 2012 at 1:47 pm
I’m now ashamed to call myself a University of Oregon alumni.
🙁
Don’t be ashamed mate! Stand up and be counted. Be proud to tell the fascists that you won’t go quietly into the night and let them ruin your life/CV/government/planet. Don’t be ashamed, don’t be fearful. Stick it to ’em. It is THEY who are the invaders.

I sent an email to professor Noorgard on April 6, 2012 (norgaard@uoregon.edu). I asked her to review the “U.S Senate Minority: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims, Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008″. Document released December 11, 2008. I asked her to do a keyword search on “religion”.
I also expressed my view that she has absolutely no idea what she is talking about and that the alleged “evidence” does not in fact support anthropogenic global warming. I was not very nice about it. I received no response.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy